What I believe, is that the purpose of science is simply to
understand our surroundings in a way that if we were to be able to
reproduce the results in a controlled environment (e.g. a lab), the
results will always be the same every single time. So when the
results aren't consistent, we keep looking and looking until we
find a way that works.
Sometimes though, what we arrive at to be true or false is
simply due to the limits that we test them at. For example, Louis
Pasteur's experiments with boiling water that proved that
pasturization would work to kill off all microbes succeeded partly
because he got lucky; now after more experiments we have found that
some microbes do survive above 100c .
This is the beauty of science of course, that if something that
was previously accepted to be true is now found out to be false, we
willingly throw away our old beliefs and embrace the new result(s).
It is interesting that some monks (Ajahn Brahm, Dalai Lama) have
said that Buddhism works similarly, that what was found to be true
should be embraced instead of scriptural authority.
So in that case, why haven't these monks defrocked since certain
aspects of buddhism could not be proven to be true under science? I
can't speak for them of course, but faith in the teachings, and the
fact that the teachings of the Buddha worked for them probably has
quite a lot to do with this. After all, science is always moving
towards truth, and what is found to be true/untrue is only so
for now, until new findings overturn or
reinforce them.
For me personally, there are certain parts of Buddhism that I do
not totally accept yet, and I will not elaborate here for fear of
bad karma (heh heh!). However, I am not particularly smart, nor
perceptive. Those aspects of buddhism that I'm skeptical about, I
just treat as I'm unable to understand them for now. I'm confident
that if I strive hard enough, I'll get to the point that I can see
for myself whether they true... or not. Not sure if this has been
posted, nor if it's relevant to you, but do have a read about the
parable of the poison arrow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_arrow
.
In fact for science, I have the absolute confidence that given
enough time everything can be found out to be true or false for
sure. Who knows, the scientific formula for karma could be
discovered 10,000 years from now, and you'll need to plug in 84,000
variables for it to work perfectly. But I am naive like
that.
At the end of the day, whoever approaches religion should do so
with healthy amounts of faith and the willingness to continually
test the teachings. I believe that after a while at it, if you ask
yourself if you're a happier, better person and the answer is
positive, then there's no problem at all. Unhappy (religionists of
your choice)/atheist/deists/humanists exist, so if whatever you
believe in doesn't work after rigorous testing, move on and find
something else that does.
Thanks for your reply. Here's an excerpt from Carl Sagan's book,
where he recounts:
----------------
"In theological discussion with religious leaders, I often
ask what their response would be if a central tenet of their faith
were disproved by science. When I put this question to the current
Fourteenth Dalai Lama, he unhesitatingly replied as no conservative
of fundamentalist religious leaders do: In such a case, he said,
Tibetan Buddhism would have to change.
Even, I asked, if it's a really central tenet, like (I searched for
an example) reincarnation?
Even then, he answered.
However-- he added with a twinkle--it's going to be hard to
disprove reincarnation.
Plainly, the Dalai Lama is right. Religious doctrine that is
insulated from disproof has little reason to worry about the
advance of science. The grand idea, common to many faiths, of a
Creator of the Universe is one such doctrine-- difficult alike to
demonstrate or to dismiss."
----------------
I think this ties in very nicely with your comments. Something
that is untestable and unfalsifiable will require faith to believe
in it. That is not in dispute.
The real question then is whether that faith is reasonable.
I cannot disprove some of the tenets of Buddhism, just as I
cannot disprove your claim that there's an invisible, incorporeal
dragon in your bedroom.
However, I can point out the historical reliability of
supernatural claims has proven to be extremely poor.
I can call out the inconsistencies and gaps in Buddhism that I
can see -- given my limited knowledge.
I will challenge you to think beyond authoritative doctrine, and
decide for yourself which elements of Buddhism are reasonable --
and which are not.
I will suggest, that people will believe what they want to. That
is how some people can believe that the earth is 6,000 years old,
despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Intellectual
honesty is what is needed, not blind faith.
We should always think critically and to challenge ourselves and
others. The truth is sometimes difficult and uncomfortable -- we
want to think that there's something more to our lives. We want to
think that there's a deeper reason for the things that happen to
us.
But the evidence suggests that this is it. This is all we have.
This is uncomfortable, but we must never settle for less than the
truth.
